Get Some
General => General Chat => Intellectual Discussion => Topic started by: Xsannz on October 23, 2014, 07:43:36 am
-
http://action.labour.org.nz/save-our-breaks (http://action.labour.org.nz/save-our-breaks)
Concerning, but seen it coming for a while now.
""The Government's currently trying to rush through a law to stop workers from having the right to a tea break.
For thousands of working Kiwis across the country, it will mean the risk of losing the breaks they take to have a deserved rest and a cup of tea or coffee.""
-
I didnt vote for them
Welcome to the National Nanny State
previous statement was pejorative
-
My time gets charged out to the customer at $185 an hour.
Takes me about 6 minutes to make a coffee.
Each coffee I drink costs our customers $20.
-
I hardly get a break as it is.Driving 4 hours straight and apparently im suppose to allow time for one.
Definitely against the law change. But it should really be part of your working contract if you want to work through a break or not.
Breaks were made to enforce refreshments and rest the mind so you focus on work more??
-
Didn't vote for National - cockstains.
However, I don't really get a 'tea-break' to begin with. I'm guessing most workplaces aren't going to remove breaks just because it's no longer mandatory anyway, otherwise shit is going to get serious.
I'm struggling to see what the point of it is. Have businesses been lobbying the government to make this change? Have we been asking for it? If not, what are National getting out of this law change?
-
Where can I read up about this new law? Can't find much information on the news sites.
-
^This!
I want to know I have all the facts before I become outraged.
-
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0105/latest/whole.html#whole (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/government/2013/0105/latest/whole.html#whole)
Relevant bit:
Rest and meal breaks
Clauses 43 to 46 of the bill would change the existing rules for employees’ entitlements to rest and meal breaks. The aim is to move from a prescriptive to a more flexible approach, encouraging employers and employees to negotiate in good faith about workable arrangements as to how and when breaks should be taken. The changes proposed would require an employer to provide reasonable compensatory measures where an employee could not reasonably be provided with breaks.
We are aware of considerable concern about these provisions, particularly about the possible impact on employees’ health and safety if breaks are restricted. We have considered these issues carefully.
The majority of us consider two points to be particularly relevant. First, the bill would not override any requirements under other legislation. For example, specific regulations governing hours of work for drivers of passenger transport services, and—importantly—the general duty imposed on employers under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992, would be unaffected by the provisions in question. Section 6 of that Act imposes a general duty on employers to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of employees at work, including providing and maintaining a safe work environment. An employer’s responsibility under that Act for controlling hazards extends to any person’s behaviour resulting from physical or mental fatigue that might be an actual or potential source of harm to themselves or others. Providing breaks, or varying the nature or intensity of work, would remain obvious ways for an employer to address such hazards, regardless of the changes proposed in the bill.
A second important consideration is the reasonableness test in these clauses. Clause 44, new section 69ZD(2), specifies that any restriction of rest or meal breaks must be reasonable and necessary, having regard to the nature of the employee’s work. If breaks were not provided, a reasonable compensatory measure must be provided (new section 69ZEB).
The majority of us consider that these factors would ensure that the bill met the policy intent of improving workplace flexibility, while continuing to protect the rights of employees. Accordingly, we are not recommending any amendment of these provisions.
I'm not a fan of a lot of the things National are doing of late, but I really have minimal issue with this.
In my secondary employment we pretty much don't get breaks due to the nature of the job. Currently that means my employer is technically in breach of the laws around tea breaks. This simply means that employers can negotiate alterations to break schedules to fit the business need, and where it's not practical to provide tea breaks, we get compensation instead.
-
I'm OK with this.
However with no hard and fast rule, it may become harder to prove in a court of law that you're not being given adequate work breaks.
-
I'm OK with this.
However with no hard and fast rule, it may become harder to prove in a court of law that you're not being given adequate work breaks.
i think an addendum should be added to current law to say that it is advisable or ideal working conditions etc, but up to individual contract to negotiate
-
Food service jobs are definitely the ones that would benefit from this
-
i think an addendum should be added to current law to say that it is advisable or ideal working conditions etc, but up to individual contract to negotiate
That's a bad idea. You shouldn't have to negotiate adequate breaks, it should be given by default.
What the law does seem to be about is that it'll be up to the workplace and the employee to workout the best times to take breaks due to not every work environment allowing staff to take a break at 10am and one at 3pm. And if breaks are unable to be taken despite best efforts, then the employee will be reimbursed.
-
One of the primary aspects of Govt, that never ceases to amaze me, is their ability to introduce conflicting legislature. Now I realise isn;t law yet, but look at the endless dicking around a man has to endure, as either employer, or employee, in regards to Health and Safety Policies, that are currently law. Giving the ability for employers to try and negotiate away breaks, will in turn have the poetential to create tired, inattentive emplyees, who combined with a busy work environment, will inevitably lead to higher workplace injuries.
The bill as it reads, is not a draconian piece of law by any stretch, but some employers will try twist it to their advantage.